1. Title, director and release year?
Title: Blind Spot
Director: Adolfo Doring
Release Year: 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that the way that we as humans are treating oil is not only unsustainable, but has the potential to cause chaos if we choose to simply “run out”. Therefore, our only chance is to lower and then stop our oil production.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
This documentary was interesting in the sense that there was no narrator or narration in general. I may have missed it since I was engrossed in the movie, but I am pretty sure that only the people being interviewed talked during the whole movie. As such, a lot of experts were supplying a their professional and scientific opinions, so it was hard to have a problem with the movie’s logical standpoint on the oil crisis. Since there was no narration, the film relied on images for emotional appeal with musical accompaniment.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This sustainability problem was related to topics of American culture, oil politics, economic impacts of rising oil prices, and the impact of our fossil fuel consumption on the world around us.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The single most compelling part of this film was the idea of peak oil production (POP). Logically and historically, all processes come to a peak. Steel mills did during the industrial revolution, wells pumped on older farms run dry, etc. At some point, the same thing will happen to our oil wells. It’s not a complicated idea, I just never really thought of it. As our current wells begin to run dry, we will go to the most remote regions of the world to harvest the last bits of oil available. We will do this because our nation runs on fossil fuels. We need to redesign our entire social and commercial infrastructure to survive this crisis.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Honestly, I didn’t find this film too terribly emotionally engaging. I think it was the lack of narration was the problem. There was no main voice to follow, so it rather sounded like a string of interviews. I will say that the interviews were quite informative, but I would have liked to have a bridge between the facts to help meditate on the issues and provide a more emotional feel to the movie. The imagery, while powerful, was shadowed by the interviews in my opinion. Nevertheless, the film stayed effective.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
Due to its lack of an emotional force, this film is more targeted at an academic crowd. 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
No additional information was really needed, but a narrator would help expand the number of people who would be interested in the film.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
We need to not only improve efficiency (since that would lead to an increase in use), but also decrease our dependency. We need to find alternative sources of cheap and sustainable energy. In the end, this may destroy the amount of mobility and variety that we enjoy every day in our lives, but it will stop the inevitable crash and riots that would ensue otherwise.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film has caused me to look both more in depth at POP and Jevon’s paradox. Jevon’s paradox occurs when something becomes more efficient, so more people use it, thereby nullifying any improvement in efficiency. I had never heard of this before and the idea fascinates me due to its interconnectivity with the human spirit and its simplicity.
Title: Blind Spot
Director: Adolfo Doring
Release Year: 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that the way that we as humans are treating oil is not only unsustainable, but has the potential to cause chaos if we choose to simply “run out”. Therefore, our only chance is to lower and then stop our oil production.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
This documentary was interesting in the sense that there was no narrator or narration in general. I may have missed it since I was engrossed in the movie, but I am pretty sure that only the people being interviewed talked during the whole movie. As such, a lot of experts were supplying a their professional and scientific opinions, so it was hard to have a problem with the movie’s logical standpoint on the oil crisis. Since there was no narration, the film relied on images for emotional appeal with musical accompaniment.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This sustainability problem was related to topics of American culture, oil politics, economic impacts of rising oil prices, and the impact of our fossil fuel consumption on the world around us.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The single most compelling part of this film was the idea of peak oil production (POP). Logically and historically, all processes come to a peak. Steel mills did during the industrial revolution, wells pumped on older farms run dry, etc. At some point, the same thing will happen to our oil wells. It’s not a complicated idea, I just never really thought of it. As our current wells begin to run dry, we will go to the most remote regions of the world to harvest the last bits of oil available. We will do this because our nation runs on fossil fuels. We need to redesign our entire social and commercial infrastructure to survive this crisis.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Honestly, I didn’t find this film too terribly emotionally engaging. I think it was the lack of narration was the problem. There was no main voice to follow, so it rather sounded like a string of interviews. I will say that the interviews were quite informative, but I would have liked to have a bridge between the facts to help meditate on the issues and provide a more emotional feel to the movie. The imagery, while powerful, was shadowed by the interviews in my opinion. Nevertheless, the film stayed effective.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
Due to its lack of an emotional force, this film is more targeted at an academic crowd.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
No additional information was really needed, but a narrator would help expand the number of people who would be interested in the film.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
We need to not only improve efficiency (since that would lead to an increase in use), but also decrease our dependency. We need to find alternative sources of cheap and sustainable energy. In the end, this may destroy the amount of mobility and variety that we enjoy every day in our lives, but it will stop the inevitable crash and riots that would ensue otherwise.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film has caused me to look both more in depth at POP and Jevon’s paradox. Jevon’s paradox occurs when something becomes more efficient, so more people use it, thereby nullifying any improvement in efficiency. I had never heard of this before and the idea fascinates me due to its interconnectivity with the human spirit and its simplicity.
POP: http://www.livescience.com/6215-oil-production-peak-2014-scientists-predict.html
Jevons Paradox: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_owen